Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1401910638186-5806064.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <22E4AA70-202E-4D2F-B93C-06D944EDC5FC@gmail.com>
References: <22E4AA70-202E-4D2F-B93C-06D944EDC5FC@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: group commit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Evgeniy Shishkin wrote
> Hi, 
> 
> i just wanted to know if group commit (as described in
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Group_commit ) was committed.

I guess that depends on whether this comment in the 9.2 release notes covers
the same material described in the linked wiki page (I would presume it
does).

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/release-9-2.html
Section: E.9.3.1.1. Performance


> Allow group commit to work effectively under heavy load (Peter Geoghegan,
> Simon Riggs, Heikki Linnakangas)
> 
> Previously, batching of commits became ineffective as the write workload
> increased, because of internal lock contention.

Though based upon your question regarding parallel replication I am thinking
that maybe your concept of "group commit" and the one that was implemented
are quite different...

David J.


--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/group-commit-tp5806056p5806064.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance